ROOTS-L Archives

Archiver > ROOTS > 2005-08 > 1125333346


From: "Glen Todd" <>
Subject: [ROOTS-L] RE: ROOTS-L Digest V05 #394
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:35:46 -0600
In-Reply-To: <200508291434.j7TEYtG2032041@lists5.rootsweb.com>


> ------------------------------
>
> X-Message: #1
> Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:52:32 -0700
> From: "V. Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr." <>
> Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] "PATERNAL DISCREPANCY "; OR: Is DNA,
> as used by research
> genealogists, a "pseudo science"?
>
> wrote:
>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Re: [ROOTS-L] "PATERNAL DISCREPANCY "; OR: Is DNA,
> as used by research genealogists, a "pseudo science"?
>

I think that somebody has an agenda here. I am active on Genealogy-DNA-L,
and I think that there is a very clear and scientific understanding of
exactly what genetics can and cannot tell us. Nobody is claiming that it
can produce the same resolution in the same way as paper trail genealogy; on
the other hand, it infallibly records what did happen instead of just what
somebody wrote down. (Which may not always please everybody.) It can
often provide supporting evidence for a paper trail -- or disprove one
(which again may displease some people). It can sometimes help select
between multiple scenarios; for instance suggesting which of several
families of the same name in the same town a child most likely belonged to.
Again, though, it doesn't always support 'traditional' social or
church-sanctioned constructs and strictures, which is why discussion of DNA
evidence is considered offensive on many 'traditional' genealogy lists.
They don't want to know the facts; rather, they want support for their
preconceptions.

Glen


This thread: